Deals with the devil...
I'm a couple of months away from the day on which I must decide once and for all if I'm going to keep trying to turn music writing and performance into a viable living, or return to teaching (with writing and performance as a side-line if at all). No big deal - just deciding the rest of my life, more or less.
There seem to be two schools of thought out there as to how to go about making a living at music. The first is to concentrate on writing great tunes. Of course 'great' is ridiculously subjective even somewhat at the mercy of fashion trends, but a viable combination of substantial, sincere and catchy/provocative (all three of which interrelate) would seem a good rule of thumb.
The other route is to follow the Gene Simmons route: focus on image and promote 'til it hurts. Schmooze and draw attention to yourself at every opportunity.
Both approaches do require that you work your ass off, in any case. Perhaps it's a question of putting your best foot forward - if you're a natural promoter, or you have a knack for cultivating an image, follow that passion; if your heart is in writing, write. At least nobody accused Bob Dylan of not having enough explosions or a logo onstage...but do image-heavy bands ever take any heat for their priorities? Enough to get hotter than hell, if you will.
I just finished reading the autobiography "No Regrets" from the original Kiss lead guitarist Paul "Ace" Frehley. Probably as different from Simmons as chalk and cheese, Ace does express some regret about sacrificing legitimacy as a musician when Kiss decided to put their energies into such conspicuous image. On drunken rants in the past, he has also claimed to have been the best and only serious musician in the original line-up. He describes the image decision as a deal with the devil. Success came at a price.
Although I enjoyed and appreciated image-heavy bands when I was in my teens, these days I'd just as soon put on a Roy Buchanan album and savour the tone and expression. Not that I'm above listening to my old faves once in a while - but I couldn't care less what they look like anymore or what cachet they have/lack.
I have even less interest in building an image for my band beyond its sound and approach to composition. It's just not my passion in the least. I have about equal interest in phoning, convincing, cajoling and hassling industry folks that my music is worth hearing. If I'm having to put as much effort into persuasion as I do at composition, the joy of writing seems lost. After all, one of the thrills of writing is when your music connects to the listener. Hard to find the thrill if all effort has gone into convincing the listener that the song is great before the song is even heard.
What ever strange occupations I might have contemplated trying throughout the years, advertising was never one of them.
Does this make for a doomed music career? Perhaps. I'll mull it over after I've written another couple of songs.
I'm a couple of months away from the day on which I must decide once and for all if I'm going to keep trying to turn music writing and performance into a viable living, or return to teaching (with writing and performance as a side-line if at all). No big deal - just deciding the rest of my life, more or less.
There seem to be two schools of thought out there as to how to go about making a living at music. The first is to concentrate on writing great tunes. Of course 'great' is ridiculously subjective even somewhat at the mercy of fashion trends, but a viable combination of substantial, sincere and catchy/provocative (all three of which interrelate) would seem a good rule of thumb.
The other route is to follow the Gene Simmons route: focus on image and promote 'til it hurts. Schmooze and draw attention to yourself at every opportunity.
Both approaches do require that you work your ass off, in any case. Perhaps it's a question of putting your best foot forward - if you're a natural promoter, or you have a knack for cultivating an image, follow that passion; if your heart is in writing, write. At least nobody accused Bob Dylan of not having enough explosions or a logo onstage...but do image-heavy bands ever take any heat for their priorities? Enough to get hotter than hell, if you will.
I just finished reading the autobiography "No Regrets" from the original Kiss lead guitarist Paul "Ace" Frehley. Probably as different from Simmons as chalk and cheese, Ace does express some regret about sacrificing legitimacy as a musician when Kiss decided to put their energies into such conspicuous image. On drunken rants in the past, he has also claimed to have been the best and only serious musician in the original line-up. He describes the image decision as a deal with the devil. Success came at a price.
Although I enjoyed and appreciated image-heavy bands when I was in my teens, these days I'd just as soon put on a Roy Buchanan album and savour the tone and expression. Not that I'm above listening to my old faves once in a while - but I couldn't care less what they look like anymore or what cachet they have/lack.
I have even less interest in building an image for my band beyond its sound and approach to composition. It's just not my passion in the least. I have about equal interest in phoning, convincing, cajoling and hassling industry folks that my music is worth hearing. If I'm having to put as much effort into persuasion as I do at composition, the joy of writing seems lost. After all, one of the thrills of writing is when your music connects to the listener. Hard to find the thrill if all effort has gone into convincing the listener that the song is great before the song is even heard.
What ever strange occupations I might have contemplated trying throughout the years, advertising was never one of them.
Does this make for a doomed music career? Perhaps. I'll mull it over after I've written another couple of songs.